After some delay, we present another chapter in our occasional series, How Hard Can It Be To Make a Minivan? In it, we continue to explore the auto industry’s many misfires in its attempts to replicate Chrysler’s secret formula for minivan success. This chapter follows Part 1 (the Chevrolet Astro) and Part 2 (the Ford Aerostar).

Although it was 1986 everywhere else on the planet, it was still 1955 at GM headquarters. In 1955, only GM could have brought us the Motorama show cars that stopped traffic and opened wallets all over the country. Under the styling leadership of the great Harley Earl, GM brought us longer, lower, wider and chrome-bedecked chariots that, if not able to make our dreams come true, at least looked like they could. However, it was 1986 in the rest of the United States, and Americans were gobbling up minivans –and in the minivan market, Chrysler was kicking GM in the slats.

The General’s first attempt at a minivan, the Astro/Safari, was a modest success. The Astro was a workmanlike attempt to cash in on the newly discovered demand for minivans, and GM could be forgiven for initially believing a 5/8 scale Beauville made a proper minivan. Meanwhile, Chrysler was racking up huge sales numbers with vehicles that were more car-like than van-like. For GM, the Astro’s middling sales numbers simply weren’t good enough.

Can anyone doubt how the conversation went? “Smithers, it looks like Chrysler may have stumbled onto something here. Sometimes, desperation will find us something that a bazillion dollars worth of market research can’t. If you quote me on this, I’ll deny every word and see that you’re fired. But if the public wants a minivan that’s more like a car, then we’ll damn well give them one–only better. I want all the stops pulled out on this. We’ll make Lee Iacocca wish he’d never been born. Any questions?”

Let us make no mistake – with the U-body triplets GM was swinging for the fences, with a bold design intended to wrestle minivan leadership away from Chrysler. They were a reaction to ebbing Astro sales as well as complaints from Chevy and Pontiac dealers. The U-bodies would not represent a simple, conservative reworking of a sedan; instead, GM was going to bring their A-game in both styling and engineering in an effort to redefine the template for a successful minivan.

GM’s styling choices shouldn’t have surprised anyone. For generations, General Motors was synonymous with styling leadership: With rare exceptions, the General set the trends and the rest of the industry followed in line. Now, once again, the GM stylists were hard at work. Actually, the original concept of the Pontiac TranSport really should have been the sort of thing that made car guys drool. After all, this was the ’80s, and after at least a decade of the conservative “sheer” look, it seemed that the world was hungry for some automotive adventure. The ’80s represented the future, and GM was going to give it to us.

The U-bodies made another big break with tradition in their method of production. GM had decided that instead of a standard-issue unit structure, they’d utilize a galvanized space-frame (a la Fiero and Saturn) clad in composite (plastic) outer-body panels. In truth, this was quite a good idea for a minivan; after all, what other kind of passenger vehicle works harder than one serving a big, active family? Something able to stand up to errant baseballs and shopping carts and bicycle handlebars would surely be a huge hit with soccer moms (and dads).

The U-bodies’ most conventional aspect was mechanicals. Their powertrains would come straight from GM’s massive parts bins, and there would be no puny four-cylinder engines. The latter would prove to be a good call by GM when the market for four-banger minivans virtually evaporated as the ’90s progressed. V6 power was where the minivan future lay, and GM was right on the spot. Granted, the power of the 120 hp, 3.1-liter engine of the first couple of years didn’t overwhelm anyone, but in 1992 a 170 hp, 3.8-liter unit came to the rescue. The combination of that engine and GM’s four-speed automatic transaxle would become what was perhaps the best feature of these vans, and was one of the few areas where GM could claim honest-to-goodness leadership over Chrysler.

GM chose to market the van through three divisions: The Chevrolet Lumina APV would be the practical version; Pontiac’s TranSport would cater to “We Build Excitement” fans; and, somewhat strangely, the luxury version would be sold at Oldsmobile rather than Buick dealerships. Perhaps that decision involved a little political horse-trading along the lines of, “Buick gets the Reatta, so Oldsmobile gets the minivan. Now get out of my office.” If so, Oldsmobile apparently got the better of the deal.

This vehicle cannot be discussed without referring to the 1995 movie Get Shorty. In the picture, John Travolta’s character is told by an airport rental agent that the Cadillac he had reserved is not available. Upset about being assigned a Silhouette, he’s told by the rental agent that “It’s the Cadillac of minivans.” That phrase was a running gag throughout the movie, and remains inextricably attached to the Silhouette even today.

Unfortunately, the erstwhile Cadillac of minivans looked a whole lot (at least from the outside) like the Pontiac or even the Chevrolet of minivans. Somehow, Oldsmobile simply wasn’t able to position the Silhouette as a high-end product, as Chrysler’s Town & Country (which debuted the same year as the Silhouette) promptly took and kept the lead in the luxury-minivan segment. Despite its nicely appointed leather interiors and significant power advantage, the Silhouette just couldn’t get much traction.

It didn’t help matters when, just one year into the Silhouette’s run, Chrysler introduced its second-generation minivans which, once again, topped the competition in virtually every aspect. In an ironic reversal of roles, people perceived the Town & Country to be the real Cadillac of minivans, and the Silhouette as its Imperial-like counterpart. Indeed, the Silhouette was selling, slowly but steadily, to traditional Oldsmobile buyers, but never really shared garage space with high-end vehicles from other manufacturers.

After racking up first-year sales of about 28,000 units, the Silhouette settled into a range of 10-18,000 U.S. sales per year; in its final year, however, sales totaled a scant 7,000 units. Interestingly, Oldsmobile did enjoy several years of significant export sales, moving some 10,000 vans per year from 1993-1995. To put these numbers into perspective, the early-’90s minivan market comprised about one million units annually, half of which was locked up by Chrysler Corporation. GM’s selling roughly half of Chrysler’s volume required not only Chevrolet, Pontiac and Oldsmobile versions of the U-body, but also the perennial Chevy Astro and GMC Safari. With two separate platforms being sold through four of their six dealer networks, GM’s efforts wouldn’t have done even as well as they did had capacity constraints not kept Mopar’s minivan production well below demand. Who could have imagined this turn of events in 1980 (or 1960, or 1940)?

Why weren’t the U-vans more popular? Surely, it had to be that unique shape. Polarizing looks aside, other factors were working against them. First, they attempted to sell high style to a demographic more appreciative of high functionality. Beautiful girls may rule the cocktail party circuit, but on a camping trip you want a girl who can carry a backpack and cook over an open fire. What’s more, the shape dictated poor chassis utilization. The U-bodies gave up 10 inches of wheelbase to the Chryslers, but were still four inches longer than an extended-length Chrysler minivan. Unfortunately, all that extra space was rendered useless by the extreme slope of the windshield. In fact, their usable passenger area actually was closer to that of a short-wheelbase Caravan or Voyager. Did all that make the Silhouette the 1985 Cadillac of minivans?

These vans did bring one lasting innovation (GM’s only one?) to the modern minivan: The power-operated sliding door. Personally I hate the things, which are maddeningly slow and costly to repair. That said, I am clearly in the minority, since my recent purchase of a low-trim-level minivan required the dealer to go practically two states away to locate one without that dreaded plague. If you are one of the many who have offered their undying thanks for the convenience of electric sliders, you have the Dustbusters to thank.

About that name – some of our younger readers may not remember the Dustbuster, a uniquely-styled handheld vacuum made by Black & Decker that bore an uncanny resemblance to this vehicle’s, er, silhouette. The name stuck, and today even the U-body’s biggest fans refer to it as the Dustbuster.

Unfortunately for GM, the Dustbuster triplets did not turn out to be the successful products the company envisioned. In the game of Minivan Battleship, GM had just scored its second straight miss. The experience must have chastened the once-great General Motors, which has not made another significant play for leadership in the minivan market. Although GM clearly had misread the market for a second time, their effort gave us minivans that were both mechanically competent and interesting. Then again, GM has shown us on many occasions that interesting isn’t always a great selling feature.

82 Comments

These vans were a total failure compared to a 1st gen Chrysler van. Poor space utilization, too front heavy, and poor power train choices (did you ever have to work on the 3.1?). I still have a 2nd gen short wheelbase van and absolutely love it. Fits in the garage and has great visibility in the rear. Only wish it had a left sliding door.

I heard a familiar sound while reading this – a nail being hit squarely on the head. What was GM’s thought process during the development of these? Cockiness, misinterpretation, or cluelessness? And, they already had a nameplate that was bland, the Lumina, so why did they tack that name on the Chevrolet version of these?

I did drive one of these once; I think it was the Pontiac version, for a trip of about 4 hours duration. Seeing 3′ of dash in front of me didn’t impress me, especially all the debris caught at the bottom of the windshield and simply could not be retrieved.

If they’d gone with the concept car, or a closer rendition, they likely would have nailed it.

The minivan market was all for functionality, true…but when ChryCo came up with PLEASING designs for their 1995 minivan redesign, they sold like hotcakes…even Daimler only attempted minor tweaking of the package. The problems with the U were multiple:

1) Legendary GM mechanical mediocrity in smaller products.

2) Truly awkward styling with much wasted space.

3) Mindless badge-engineering that did not distinguish between names AT ALL; doing so makes the product generic and cheapens its image.

I am not defending these vans or GM in anyway, but Chrysler had the same level of badge engineering with their vans. Was there really a lot of difference between a Voyager and Caravan other than the name plates? And they sold well, so I don’t know how much the badge engineering came into the lack of success.

Good point, there were actually a lot more differences between a Silhouette, Transport, and APV than a Caravan, Voyager, and T&C.

jpcavanaugh

Posted December 6, 2012 at 7:27 AM

I do not disagree that the various Dustbuster flavors were easy to tell apart, and also that the Chrysler versions were much more similar. However, for all of that differentiation, was there anything about the exterior of the Silhouette that said “luxury”? To me, they always looked like three distinct flavors of the same thing. You pick one over the other because you like the dealer, or because you like the look of the trim on this one over that one. It looked to me that all three seemed to appeal to the same broad suburban middle class demographic.

Chrysler’s benefit was that what few changes made to the outside made the vehicle look more expensive than the Plymouth it shared the showrooms with. Also, with the Voyager and the T&C in the same showroom, customers got to make direct comparisons, and the interiors of those 90s T&Cs were really nice. For those who could afford it, it was a significant upgrade.

Phil

Posted December 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Perhaps, but look at them again above: The only differences I see on the T&C from a GC are gold stickers, a different grill, and nicer wheels. Same difference the Olds had from a base APV. The Olds had a different dash, nicer upholstry, and available leather as well.

Now “nice” and “different” are two different things, but I wonder if you thought the T&C was nicer because it was more traditional? As a teenager at the time I thought the Olds was nicer because it was so much more modern. I think as far as content goes they were similar to the T&C. But my memory isn’t good enough to remember all the details. In any case, I think we can probably agree that GM tried harder, even if the end result wasn’t as successful.

Ltd

Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I believe the T&C also had the upgraded body kit, grille, interior and dash of the generation shown above. As a kid I always thought they looked significantly classier than Caravans, especially only being in offered in the very in at the time gold trim standard with limited colors, Burgundy, green, white and maybe a couple others that all looked good paired with gold.

To me, I always thought the first generation Tran Sport looked more expensive from the outside than the other GM vans. The two tone colors and sharp body kit fit well with the wedge shape. The Sillouette just looks like a Lumina with extra stickers on it.

mcc.pj

Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM

While the Chryslers were just as badge-engineered as GM’s U-bodies, I think the way they went about it was smarter and less likely to set off buyers’ BS sensors.

GM’s badge jobs, by contrast, tried to give the U-body identities that were simply unrealistic for a minivan to fulfil (Trans Sport = exciting & fun to drive, Silhouette = slick modern luxury?). To my mind, that always made them a more crass marketing exercise.

FromaBuick6

Posted December 6, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Most years, the Caravan and Voyager had the exact same trim levels, equipment and pricing. In later years, the Plymouth lost some of the higher trims because of the Town & Country, but still had the exact same MSRP as the equivalent Dodge.

Dodge and Plymouth were basically the same from the late ’70s on, existing solely to satisfy two separate sales channels that both demanded a full line of cars. The brands themselves were basically worthless after the disasters of the ’70s, anyway. Iacocca and Chrysler were smart enough to realize that a) They couldn’t afford to significantly differentiate the brands and b) The customer knows they’re the same damn car, anyway, so they didn’t even bother pretending, stuck the Pentastar on the hood of every vehicle and marketed the products instead of the nameplates. What a novel concept, huh? Dodge and Plymouth models were frequently marketed side by side in TV and print ads and “K-car” or “Chrysler minivan” superseded the individual nameplate in the minds of many customers, so the strategy was reasonably effective.

In short, Chrysler used badge-engineering to its advantage, creating greater market recognition for its products and creating a more cohesive image for the company itself, whose public perception was in the dumpster after the bailout. Naturally, GM did the exact opposite.

The U-body vans were so typical of GM in trying to market the same vehicle under an endless array of nameplates that actively cannibalized each other, confused customers and ultimately wasting development and ad dollars. “Excludes other GM models” was the standard disclaimer in pretty much every GM ad in this era in order to claim that the Silhouette had the world’s only power sliding door, etc.

The concept car looks awesome.
The production design continues the GM disease of hideously botching a good concept with tone-deaf compromise-and-cost-cutting. Same thing with the Aztek, which believe it or not mutated from a decent-looking show car.

I wonder how much of that black-striped tape Olds used on those thngs still sits around somewhere?

Interestingly, these things and their siblings are still running around in sufficient but dimishing numbers in my area. There was a white one just like the photo in my neighborhood until recently.

In fact, a friend still drives his 1996 Pontiac Trans Sport – in bright red-orange (as they should be)! He can’t kill the thing, but does plan on replacing it next year – but keeping the dustbuster as the family truck, which it has been for years. I get a chance to ride in it every month or so.

The back seats are the real problem with these – you almost sit on the floor and they are not comfortable for more than about 45 minutes. I get to spend about 6 hours in it next month, but I’ll survive…I’m sure the Olds versions weren’t any better.

Those tape stripes were my least favorite feature of these. I always thought that that miserable fat black stripe looked cheesy, which was probably not what GM was going for with its most expensive version. There was nothing about the outside of this that said “luxury”.

I really wanted to like these when they came out. But I knew with styling like that, other manufacturers were either going to follow it or utterly ignore it. They chose the latter, going generally for good expressions of more conventional looks — leaving these vans to look like cartoons.

BTW, I was amused to note that the Lumina version of this van had the same dash switch gear as my ’89 Chevy Beretta. Hooray for the parts bin!

Can anybody remember, beyond maybe the Pontiac Aztek, when GM has gone so far out on a styling limb since these vans? I have to think that these plus the Aztek have chastened their styling dept. for 20 years now.

I wonder how big the wheels were on that Trans Sport concept car. That thing looks sporty, even vaguely off-road capable, while the production cars look like they’re on casters. The anti-utilitarian giant windshield survived development, but the pleasant stance was expendable?

3800 made these tollerable, I’ve gotten to ride in one once or twice. When I worked in maintenance in college there was one full timer that had one of these. He traded in an old Chevy Beauville van and picked up a used Silouette very cheaply as the depreciation hammer had hit these pretty hard. We always teased him and refered to the Oldsmobile as the “luxury work vehicle.”

Like the W-cars, these U-vans were more Roger Smith era GM-junk that help continue the great GM slide to failure. No wonder they didn’t sell, anyone who went to road test these felt like driving a space ship. These vans had the most awkward seating postion of any vehicle. The had horrbile ride dynamics, a lack of power, poor space utilization compare to the Mopars, and weren’t overly reliable. I remember when these came out thinking how many times can GM fail at making a mini-van. Then the 1997 U-body came out….and the failing streak contiuned.

GM vehicles of this era are truly some of the “deadliest sins” that killed GM’s massive dominance.

You overstate things I think. I drove my parent’s APV across the country and found it to be perfectly comfortable, capable, and roomy. And while it wasn’t all that reliable, Chryslers at the time weren’t much if any better.

Compared to the ’96 and up Chryslers these weren’t that competitive. But in 1990 I believe they were.

Maybe I do overstate a bit, but I worked at a GM dealership when these were new, so I have no love for them. “GM-junk” was a common phrase at the dealership at that time, especially from the older techs who worked on GM’s older stuff. At that time I had a GM B-body wagon which was so much better in almost ever aspect than these vans and the b-body was an “ancient design” in those days. I will say, I had a former co-worker who had one, and he said once he got used to it he liked it a lot. I just couldn’t get over that terrible seating position and the overall poor quailty and design. To each their own, but I am pretty sure the market agreed that it was a poor van.

And yes, I agree, that the Mopar vans weren’t stellar in the reliability deptartment, but if you got a good one, they seemed to run forever even with minimum care.

Our APV replaced an ’83 Caprice wagon. While the wagon was good, the van was a better family hauler. Except for the build quality. In the winter especially it was no contest…reliable starting and great traction compared to the wagon. So it depends on what your definition of “better” is I suppose.

It probably wasn’t the best in class at anything (arguably style), but overall it was still competitive. You have to keep in mind these were the first direct challengers to Chrysler’s vans.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion. I think it was the styling more than anything that doomed these vans, which is why they toned it down in the update and then went very conservative on the next generation. Plenty of other “GM junk” sold well enough during that time period after all.

Bill Mitchell

Posted December 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Your experience was definitely different than mine. I remember these vans being well liked styling wise when they came out. A fairly well-off lawyer neighbour bought one based on the “futuristic styling” when they first came out (his other car was a Volvo). However, working at GM I saw lots of these vans. Lets just say there were some vehicles that had good reputations in the shop and others not so much.

I have had two B-body wagons over 25 years, both were excellent, well built, tough, easy to fix and reliable. Both had nearly 200K miles each. I would still own my second one today if it hadn’t have burned up in a house/garage fire a few years ago (the car didn’t cause the fire). Funny yours had a hard time starting, with proper tune mine always started at -30 without issue, mind you I was pretty good at tuning carbs so my choke was always set right. Winter traction with these cars were great, one of the best winter 2WD cars I have owned. The only vehicle I had that was better in the snow that wasn’t 4×4 was a 2WD Suburban, but probably because it had a locking dif and more shear weight. But I also prefer RWD in snow to a FWD any and we have no shortage of snow in my area.

Family wise, the big wagons always hauled a family of 6 with ease, and a TON of stuff, or even a trailer too. My only complaint quality wise with these cars was they rusted easily, but with a good oil spray rust proof, both stayed rust free for their time I had them. My last wagon was still near mint when it was destroyed.

When I was in high school my parents were one of the first in town to own the Lumina APV version of this. It actually had a lot going for it. Love or hate the styling, it was very advanced for the time and I’ve never seen a minivan get so much attention since. Everybody wanted a look at it when we got it. The modular seats were also innovate and worked very well. It drove nice enough and got decent mileage. The sliding door locked in the open position as well which Chrysler didn’t do at the time. I believe you could even get models with an air compressor in the back. And the plastic body panels were durable and of course never rusted. Visibility was actually good by today’s standards.

It was the details that they messed up. The dashboard was a cheap squeaking rattling mess. My dad ended up disassembling it and putting it back together with a roll of rubber tape to tame the noise. The 3-speed auto wasn’t great, the whole drivetrain wasn’t great. But it wasn’t the worst out there at the time either. The swept back top of the doors had a tendancy to hit you in the face if you weren’t paying attention (resolved with a recall to put a yellow warning sticker on the edge). That tiny finger handle for the liftgate broke. And the paint started to chip off the front.

All in all, these weren’t that far away from being a success. A lot of the most hated design features like not being able to see the front and the thick B-pillars aren’t given a second thought today. The spotty quality did however drive my dad (and me) away from GM for the first time in over 20 years. The beancounters did them in I’m afraid, but I suppose it was inevitable as the space-frame/plastic design added cost they would have to make up somewhere else.

Ugh! A Previa?! Worst Car EVER to work on. The mid-engine design installed the engine to allow “easy” access to the spark plugs. Which were easily located underneath a panel on the upper left-side of the vehicle, after you removed the 90 lb front passenger seat, the carpet, years of McDonald’s french fries and assorted old pennies, and finally an access panel. Easy!

All engine-driven accessories (alternator, power steering pump, A/C compressor, radiator fan, fuse panel, and hidden gremlins) could be reached from the front hood because they were driven off the front of the engine by an accessory driveshaft. This lovely bit of fancy shoe-horning meant two wonderful things: One, you were very limited in engine choices which made the Previa reach face-melting 0-60 times measured with a sundial; Two, the accessory driveshaft was prone to slippage that increased the fun for highway merging. What a dog.

However, was the primary mode of transportation for the poor pregnant heroine in the movie “Juno”.

When these vans came out I was invited to the proving grounds. I got to inspect the Chevrolet version. Someone had left business cards inside, so I took on and flicked it into the crevice between the windshield and the dash. If that van still exists, I bet that business card is still there.

At work at one time there must have been 4 or 5 of these. I do remember the clear coat on these peeling off after a couple of years on a couple of them.

There was one guy who loved these things. He went through 3 of them (new and used) over a 20 year period. I remember alternator and transmission problems, but that didn’t stop him. He said that was what AAA is for. But then again he had a small fleet of cars and vans to use.

These came out when I was about 8, and for a while in small town OK it appeared there were as many of the DustBuster vans as there were Mopar minivans at the curb after school. My friends parents had a Lumina APV and all I recall was as a child they seems to have about a foot less headroom than my friends who had Voyagers and Caravans. I remember one trip in particular with 4 kids and 2 adults that the Lumina seemed downright claustrophobic.

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but when I was a kid, I thought these things looked pretty cool compared to the boxes rolling out of the Mopar plants. I wanted my parents to trade in their amazingly uncomfortable and sparsely appointed Nissan and get one. That being said, I spent some time as a parking valet right after high school and worked at an Olds/ Cadillac dealership later on and remember these being pretty weird to drive with that MASSIVE dashboard and windshield. It truly felt live I was driving from the back seat.

This was simply another classic case of the GM mentality-“put the money where the
customer can see it”-styling was over-emphasized to the detriment of space utilization
and functionality Also, that huge extremely swept back windshield let in so much heat from the sun it overwhelmed the a/c’s ability to cool the vehicle. These things were simply a joke.

I rented one of these once on a business trip. I drove the Silhouette from the Twin Cities (Minnesota) to a small town on the west edge of the state. I don’t remember anything about the van, though it must have felt very different than the Vanagon I had at the time, but I’ll never forget the views through the long windshield of longstraight roads with no landmarks, and getting lost. In hindsight, I realize I’ve driven a few other rental Olds (RWD Cutlass, Achieva) but I’m not sure my kids even know what an Oldsmobile is, though both did ride in the Achieva.

I remember people calling these shuttlecraft at the time, because they resembled the shuttlecraft on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Some trekkie in my area got one, a TranSport as I recall, and painted it up in full Star Trek regalia, complete with a vanity plate that was some variation of NCC-1701-D.

Were these made in separate plants or did all the “dustbusters” come from common assembly lines? The closes I ever came to one of these was seeing cages full of seats on the loading dock of the old Chevrolet assembly plant in Tarrytown New York.

I distinctly remember seeing one of these (I think it was a Lumina APV) at the Omaha auto show in 1989.

A salesman/presenter overheard me tell my father something to the effect of, “how is someone supposed to actually drive that thing?” He ran over to state that the distance from the driver seat to the end of the front bumper was exactly the same as in a Cavalier.

That’s exactly it. You park one of those alongside a Cavalier…stand looking at the two, the Cavalier in profile in front of the Dustbuster in profile. You can see how, aside from the high roof, the U doesn’t offer a whole lot. The sloping windshield just gave a flat line to the windshield/cowl/hood of a conventional car.

When those came out, I had what I thought was my dream-car project: A 1969 Chevy panel-van, beautifully done up as a sin-bin camper. But the kingpins on the front axle were so far gone the truck was pigeon-toed; and the engine needed to come out for major work.

But I loved the space utilization of the flat-front van. Loved driving it, too…even with the messed-up front end. Then I look at those Dustbusters…they’re just rebodied CARS!…made to somewhat LOOK like a van! Bronx cheer all around.

I was 5 when these came out. At that time even I knew my parent’s 87 Plymouth Voyager looked better and was a better minivan. Having ridden in a U van in middle school I remember thinking how cramped it was compared to my parent’s short wheel base Voyager. I rarely seem GM U vans in my area anymore but then again rarely see 1st and 2nd gen Chrysler minivans either. I’d really like to pick up a good condition 1st gen Chrysler minivan and save it. That way in 20 years I’ll have the only one left :).

I have the 2002 redisigned Chevy which was renamed the Venture. While it has been very serviceable and seemed to have a bit more space than competitive minivans and has given us a solid 150K so far, it does have some shortcomings:
1.) At around year 7, the gas gauge stopped working. The mechanic said that this was typical for this vehicle and that the fix was expensive – dropping the gas tank
2.) At around the same time, the power rear vent windows stuck in the open position even though they were rarely used. Again, an expensive fix with a search and destroy mission necessary to find the problem. He got them closed for good and we now consider the windows non-operable.
3.) Some kind of leak with the cooling/AC system – a common problem for the model per the mechanic. It cost over $1,500.
4.) The third seat is like sitting on a stone wall. My kids complained about it for years and I never realized how bad it was until I got back there and tried it myself.

That is really not bad record for a ten year car. However, we have recently noticed a slight change in the engine and fear that problems are around the corner. I have possibly made a mistake by only changing the oil every 7,500 miles as GM suggests.

We got the top of the line which was $10,000 less then the Honda equivalent. The Honda might be a little better but $10,000 is a lot of money. I have never been unhappy that we bought the Venture. It has held up well and has all the bells and whistles that you could get in a minivan in 2002.

I don’t like the wheels on the concept either, but I never noticed the Pentastars until you pointed them out. 🙂 My first thought was that they actually did use those wheels on some production car, but I think they had big squares in the middle instead of pentagons.

“The U-bodies’ most conventional aspect was mechanicals. Their powertrains would come straight from GM’s massive parts bins, and there would be no puny four-cylinder engines. The latter would prove to be a good call by GM when the market for four-banger minivans virtually evaporated as the ’90s progressed.”

I have to add that GM sold the U-Van overseas as a Pontiac TranSport with an Olds 2.3l Quad4. Just the low HP version or “puny” as you say. The only transaxle available was the Getrag based 5 speed. I believe it was sold under the Olds brand even though it said Pontiac on the exterior. As someone earlier pointed out it was available from Opel in Europe.

If I had been on my game back in the early 90’s I would have made my own version using these parts. I think it would have been a kick to own a mini van with 3 pedals. I don’t recall if Chrysler offered a manual with the turbo’d 2.2/2.5 as the only ones I find in the boneyard have all been autos.

Chrysler did make 2.5 Turbo/5-speed Caravans, but they were exceptionally rare. The second generation Caravan/Voyager was available with a manual transmission too. Believe it or not quite a few different minivans had them back then, and AFAIK you can still get a Mazda5 with one to this day. Toyota at one point sold a 5-speed, mid-engined, supercharged, all-wheel-drive minivan!

A dustbuster van with the Quad4/5-speed would be a totally sweet headache. The parts to do it are probably still out there in some European junkyard, although I’d imagine the only thing you would need that couldn’t be sourced in this country is the pedal and shifter/linkage assembly.

Here’s a turbo Chrysler van with the 5-speed, looks like it would be pretty interesting to drive…

The Huge Glass Front Window was very important in the Vans structural health – glass replacement involved 24 hour sit period so glue could dry fully and not have body shift when driven. cost $1200 to replace – billc

I guess I had forgotten that the first generation GM vans only came in one length, nor had I realized how badly packaged they were. 10 inch shorter wheelbase than the Grand Chryslers, but four inches longer? What? Of course all that length went into the nose just to create the gimmicky dustbuster look, rather than at the rear where it would have actually been useful. That’s remarkably stupid.

I have to give GM some credit for the styling, though. It was ahead of its time. Steeply raked windshield, massive dashboards and front quarter windows have come into vogue small cars, starting with the Honda Fit and Civic. The high taillights were eventually cribbed by Honda and Volvo, as well. That said, I absolutely hate these styling features on new cars today just as much as I did in 1990.

But at least GM kinda, sorta tried with these. The 1997 redesign was a cheap, half-baked, me-too cop-out. Making those vans narrower for Europeans (who didn’t want them, anyway) was really boneheaded, especially because they went on to sell them completely unchanged for eight years. When they finally did update the vans in ’05, the laughably deformed result looked like something AMC or Studebaker would have done when they were gasping for their last breath.

It’s amazing how long it took for anyone to come up with a legitimate Chrysler minivan competitor. Everyone failed at least once. It took Toyota a whopping four tries, starting with the Van in the ’80s, to get it right. The U-body came closest earlier than anyone else. It would be three more years before the Quest/Villager debuted (and were too small) and another two years after that until the Windstar nailed the formula right before Chrysler added another door and turned the market on its head. It’s downright comical.

If you asked my brother what he thinks of Windstars, he’d probably have some choice adjectives. He spent most of last week trying to track down mysterious electrical gremlins in his friend’s recently acquired Windstar.

My dad bought an ’01 Windstar recenlty and has same problems with battery leakage. He will ask me to find him a car, then goes and buys “from a family who seemed nice”. After i drove it, it was like a Conastoga Buggy, but he thinks it’s a limo.

After the tranny crapped out in my 99 Town & Country, and before I replaced it, I needed a van for a birthday outing for my daughter and her friends. I borrowed a friend’s Windstar. He was very nice to let me use it, but Wow. And not a good wow, despite being newer with lower miles. I’ll stop now, as I suspect that we will be discussing Windstars at more length at some future time.

FromaBuick6

Posted December 8, 2012 at 8:19 AM

If these stories are any indication of what’s to come, I’m looking forward to that Windstar piece.

As much as the GM vans sucked, I’d take one in a heartbeat over Ford’s unreliable junk.

The “SUV” nose was added for crash standards….The second generation U bodies did horribly in the frontal crash tests. The driver and and passenger were literally folded up. The front end allowed more crush zone.
Tha Astro was horrible to. The underpan and roof folded crushing the occupants.

In about 1992, when most of the families here in the CT burbs began to trade in their Taurus wagons, my friend’s family had bought a Lumina in that aqua color that after a while always looked awful. We already had the new Voyager, and I still remember how dark and claustrophobic the rear of the Dustbuster was, especially compared to the Voyager.

The only redeeming factor for the Lumina was that my friend, who weighed well past 300 pounds, would sit in the middle of the van and move back and forth, and I swear that thing rocked so much it felt like it was on hydraulics. He could never make my mother’s Voyager perform the same way. Still makes me laugh when I see one today, as there are still quite a few survivors roaming around.

My uncle, who owned two Voyagers, liked the fact the the Chrysler vans were the same….his Plymouth dealer was vastly better then the local Dodge or Chrysler dealers. He looked at the U-vans and said, “why is there a mile of glass before you get to the steering wheel?”.

From the other side of the world, where teenage me only saw the Voyagers and Dust Busters in car magazines, the Dust Busters were far and away the most awesomely spaceage looking thing on wheels. I think they still look modern and airy today. Is style over substance really that bad? (rhetorical question!, the answer is of course yes).

I never did get the chance to ride in any of the U-body minivans, however I have ridden in various 1991-1995 Voyagers, Caravans, and Town & Country’s. Although the differences between the 3 Chrysler minivans were subtle, enough was done to differentiate them from one another, especially with the Town & Country. GM didn’t do enough to make the Silhouette, Lumina APV, and TransSport distinct enough from each other. Simply adding low-quality leather seats didn’t make the Silhouette a true “luxury” minivan. Combined with the space age styling and odd proportions, it just couldn’t compete with the Town & Country’s gathered leather seats, woodgrain dash trim, exterior chrome, waterfall grille, and gold pin-striping; all “traditional” luxury qualities.

Surprised no one has made mention of GM’s later attempt to reign these in a bit styling-wise by grafting parts-bin Bonneville headlights on.

I don’t recall if the Silhouette ever got the refreshing as they weren’t sold up in Canada until the Venture/Montana-era U-bodies. I believe the overseas model was sold as a “Trans Sport” with Pontiac badging and the Olds bumper-grille. The Venture was sent over as the Vauxhall Sintra and was widely reviled, as I recall reading in CAR around that time.

My family had one of these U Body vans as well as a mid-90s Chrysler, and I eventually spent a lot of time behind the wheels of both.

My family bought one of the first Lumina APV models to show up in my small east coast hometown. My uncle worked at the local GM dealership and somehow talked my folks into this. I think honestly it was because my 8-year-old self remarked that they looked cool, so my uncle drive the first one his dealership go straight to our house and strong-armed my mom into getting it.

The Lumina got quite a lot of attention around town, most of it very positive. People would just kind of marvel at the front end. I actually thought the rear, with its high pillar brake lights, was the most strikingly modern vantage point. Another notable feature was the ENORMOUS windshield wipers that swept from the center outward.

The bad side of this creature was the fit-and-finish and door mechanicals. I don’t think we had it more than a couple years before the rattle-prone slide out front cup rests completely fell out of the dashboard. The sliding door got rickety and required you to hook your finger in the exterior groove and “help” it pop outward before sliding back. I think we had some trouble with the exterior latch on the back hatch. And the front door latches were always disengaging from the exterior handles, requiring a painful door disassembly. One of the rear pop-out windows broke from its latching and was secured by my dad with some thick-gauge wire — it would rattle and flap for the rest of its life.

Our model was a dark blue (i thought it was black the first time i saw it) that faded to a mid-range blue after only a few years. It looked better as a darker color, and I’m surprised they didn’t sell them in black (although maybe they did with the two-tone scheme, silver down below?). The roof above the front doors was painted black rather than body color, to blend with the windshield and create a cockpit-like appearance. Whatever that black paint was, it started to pit and flake free only a few short years. This seemed to be almost universally true of those very early U Bodies.

We were also avid skiers, and my parents were highly dismayed to find that our rackless Lumina lacked rain gutters to attach a traditional ski rack system to. We ultimately found a set of Yakima bars that went solely over the front doors. They were on there, rain or shine, for many years, and imparted a very distinctive whistle. To their credit, they never caused a leak. They also made the car very easy to find in a parking lot — I never saw another U Body with load bars like that.

To be fair, my family runs cars until they die and puts a ton of very hard mountain miles on them, through some very tough winters. This car lasted us over 180,000 miles I believe (granted, it got a new in-warranty engine almost immediately after purchase, as we broke it in by taking a New England vacation and racing it up Mount Washington).

Around 95 or so we had a second minivan as well, a Chrysler. I learned to drive in 98 and put a lot of miles on both these vehicles. I have to say I greatly preferred the Lumina APV.

The Lumina was immensely more enjoyable to drive. Although it has plenty of detractors regarding its windshield and anemic engine, it was far better handling and more assured on the road compared to the Chrysler (the Lumina especially out-performed in the snow, which I attributed to its front-heavy nose). Weak engine or not, the Lumina had a far nicer pedal response than did the Chrysler (oh God how I hated both the accelerator and brake pedal on the Chrysler). The Lumina had a much more comfortable driving position, in my opinion — I always found it disarming how upright and close to the front end I felt in the Chrysler.

My entire family agreed that the Lumina was far more comfortable than the Chrysler. The lumina’s driver and front passenger, in particular, were very comfortable (the back seats in either van would probably kill me today, but we were kids back then). We loved the modularity of the Lumina’s individual back seats. Over its lifetime, we used many different seat configurations depending on our needs at the time. My sister and I often rode in the center row with the middle seat folded down into a table for us to play on. The downside to these modular seats were that the anchoring points on the floor were often exposed and would get filled with all sorts of gross crude that you could never really clean out (these ports had cheap two-part plastic panels that you were supposed to snap in place when exposed, but they almost never stayed on).

The Lumina finally left out family as it neared 200,000 miles and the alternator seized up. The Chrysler, which was several years newer, completely bought the farm around the same time (it always had transmission problems). Our lumina was noimmediately purchased and fixed up by our long-term mechanic, who had taken care of it for years and bought it for his own wife, which I think says something.

Although we often disparaged its seemingly shoddy construction (mostly cosmetic or annoyance things), it was a vehicle that reliably carried us many places for many years in comfort and relative style. We loved it, warts and all.

Those vehicles marked the end of my parents’ run of buying American cars. Today, they drive a Toyota and a BMW.

I have bought two cars in my time — a 2005 Volvo S40 and a 2012 Volvo C30. One thing I noticed about my S40 was that even at 7 years of age, it still felt tight and “new.” That was a big contrast to the Lumina, which started aging prematurely and definitely felt rattle-y and “old” around the 4-year mark.

“…my recent purchase of a low-trim-level minivan required the dealer to go practically two states away to locate one without that dreaded plague.”

O ye of little faith — to ea. their own, but we decided not to go to such extremes in shopping, & got our 2004 Sienna LE with this & other unwanted gadgetry, in an undesired color, at a fleet price; there were no CEs in stock locally. Now if it was a domestic brand, we might’ve tried a little harder. Thankfully, that bit of suburban sloth still works fine @100K miles.

The story was a bit more involved. We negotiated a good deal on a model without the $2k package that included power doors. The salesman said he could get one locally. Mrs. JPC made a big point about wanting a NEW car, and not one that had been driven a long distance. The next day, I found out where they had to go to get the car – northwestern Illinois near the Wisconsin border. The short version is that I was given a choice between a van with the power package for only $1k, or another $500 off of our already good deal on the one we wanted due to the miles put on it in the dealer trade. We took the cheap route.

the Astro/Safari was a much better van than the U-body or Chrysler’s vans. It may not have sold like the Caravan/Voyager initially but there are easily 5 times as many on the road today, many with 200,000+miles. Being RWD made it seem unmodern for the era but the 4.3L V6 had great power, the optional AWD system was bulletproof and they also came with an optional limited slip rear diff. Dash access to the engine makes maintenance 10 times easier than on any of the other vans and they also had the option of dutch doors or hatch on the rear.

I bought a 93 Olds U-body new and drove it for 17 years. My reasoning was a galvanized frame and plastic body would stand up the rigors of Michigan winter salt attacks. I put 4 Blizzack snow tires on it in the winter and the van was unstoppable. At the time the only other FWD van around was the Chrysler products. I had already had 12 years of driving Chrysler products already so no way. Mine had the 3.8/4 speed auto and it was rock solid. Much better engine/trans combo than Mopar. I think we put about 165K on it before the subframe cradle rusted thru altering the front steering geometry a bit. The spare tire was held on by a cable underneath the rear floor. One day, late in it’s life, sitting in the driveway I slammed the door and the spare broke free and fell to the ground due to the rust. I learned to never follow a U-body because of that.
The body still looked great after 17 years though.